User talk:SpartHawg948
I hate the way images look when added to talk pages. They mess with the flow of the page, and generally look just plain unsightly. As such, I ask that editors please not post images on my talk page. If you have an image that supports your point, feel free to provide a link to that image, but please don't add the image itself. From this point on, any such posts will be summarily removed as soon as they are noticed, with no warning or explanation. Cthulhu validity Here's a quote from one of the cultists in "Call of Cthulhu": :"They were not composed altogether of flesh and blood. They had shape ... but that shape was not made of matter. When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky; but when the stars were wrong, They could not live. But although They no longer lived, They would never really die. They all lay in stone houses in Their great city of R'lyeh, preserved by the spells of mighty Cthulhu for a glorious resurrection when the stars and the earth might once more be ready for Them." ::I have to say I can't see how this quote proves anything about how that function connects them to the Reapers. Even if it did it is a huge stretch. Lancer1289 20:07, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Sovereign's role was to manipulate entities into reawakening the hibernating Reapers at the edge of the galaxy. Likewise, Cthulhu had to manipulate humans into raising R'lyeh and subsequently awakening his brethren from their hibernation. This series is rife with inspiration from Lovecraft. Heck, another connection to the series in that very quote is "When the stars were right, They could plunge from world to world through the sky". -- Shoggoth1890 20:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :::(edit conflict - If you want to talk to Lancer, please do it on his talk page or yours, not mine) But that quote was contradicted in later works, was it not? For example, in The Dunwich Horror, it is stated that Cthulu is not one of the Old Ones, as was stated in the work you quote, but rather that "Great Cthulhu is Their cousin, yet can he spy Them only dimly". In other works, Cthulu's spawn are described actively fighting against the Old Ones in R'lyeh. Lovecraft's mythos is so convoluted and contradictory that statements like what you are adding really only apply if you selectively pick and choose bits of the mythos. If you take it in its entirety, they cease to have relevance. SpartHawg948 20:18, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :::*As for the "plunge from world to world through the sky" bit, I do have to call that one a real stretch. Not just a stretch, but a s-s-s-t-t-t-r-r-r-e-e-e-c-c-c-h-h-h. It has literally as much to do with Mass Effect as it does with any other sci-fi series employing FTL technology. FTL in Mass Effect has nothing whatsoever to do with the stars being right. That leaves plunging from world to world through the sky, which could refer to pretty much any sci-fi franchise. If I had to pick any sci-fi series/franchise that the quote about stars and plunging from world to world most closely resembled, it'd be Stargate, where the people actually literally go from world to world, instead of most series (like Mass Effect) where they go from star system to star system or cluster to cluster, and in which the positions of stars does have a definite impact on travel. SpartHawg948 21:17, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Apologies, posted there because I was trying to avoid cross-page talk. If it weren't for the sheer abundance of Lovecraft influence I'd agree that the between worlds bit was a stretch, so I was reticent about mentioning it. Inconsistencies in specifics of a franchise(not really a franchise I know) are not grounds to exclude any mention of said franchise. The unified canon is what matters. Star Wars is filled with inconsistencies, but it does not invalidate someone that mentions the accepted canon. Retcon sucks, yes, but it happens. -- Shoggoth1890 21:43, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :But in this case, since the source I provided comes after the source you provided, wouldn't that invalidate your position? I mean, the "ret" in retcon does stand for retroactive. That's the whole point of retcon. Material released more recently (such as The Dunwich Horror, which states that Cthulu is not one of the Old Ones) invalidating the older material (which you cite), becoming the new canon? As for a sheer abundance of Lovecraft influence, I can honestly say I haven't seen any abundance. Maybe one or two isolated bits and pieces, but certainly no more than the influences we see of other authors, such as Heinlein. SpartHawg948 22:02, January 21, 2011 (UTC) No, the second example provides the conflict, but the retcon is from going back to explain away said conflict. The Dunwich Horror example, however, is referring to the type of being that Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are. "Old Ones" are different than "Great Old Ones", source of much confusion for me initially as well. -- Shoggoth1890 22:15, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :But in Lovecraft's work, Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are "Other Gods", not Old Ones. SpartHawg948 22:25, January 21, 2011 (UTC) They are both. As stated previously, those were generic terms which to describe ancient entities, capitalized to emphasize the gravity of their being, and no more invalidates it than stating that the Ancients(Greeks) worshipped Zeus while the Ancients(Egyptians) worshipped Ra. The names being turned into proper names happened later, with "Old Ones" remaining ambiguous references to various races while "Great Old Ones" became a proper name for a particular race. -- Shoggoth1890 22:56, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah... I've seen literally nothing to support that contention. And your example would seem to further invalidate it. Zeus and Ra are two totally different deities, from two totally different pantheons. The Macedonians (generally considered quite distinct from the Ancient Greeks) did begin to associate the two gods during the reign of Alexander, but for the most part, Zeus and Ra are totally distinct. I'm telling you what I've seen and read, and this simply does not substantiate the claims you are making. The Other Gods such as Yog-Sothoth and Shub-Niggurath are vastly different from Cthulu and its ilk, and as such, the claim that "Great Cthulhu is Their cousin" really doesn't add up. On the other hand, it would make sense if referring to the Great Old Ones, who are fairly similar to Cthulu. This one seems to be coming down more to personal interpretations of vague and ill-defined literature, which does not make for good trivia. To be quite honest, I've long been of the opinion that the entire "Sovereign is similar to Cthulu" trivia item is bogus, but this seems even more so. SpartHawg948 23:23, January 21, 2011 (UTC) You completely missed my point. Using a carpet term like Old Ones or Ancients means you cannot use them to refer to a specific people. The Greek being different from the Egyptians was exactly the point I was making, it was an analogy. -- Shoggoth1890 23:33, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I'm not following that analogy. You may want to clarify that one, or maybe not. I did make some other points though that were not addressed in your reply. I would very much like to see a response to them. SpartHawg948 23:40, January 21, 2011 (UTC) Old Ones was only capitalized to add gravitas to the phrase, as evidenced in its consistency in use for several types of beings. Consider instead old ones. Literally the ones that are old, i.e. ancients. I honestly do not know how to simplify the analogy more. -- Shoggoth1890 23:49, January 21, 2011 (UTC) :So that's a no, then, on addressing the rest of my post? I don't even know why I bother asking sometimes. It seems like too many people these days listen to Robert McNamara, and answer the question they wish they'd been asked, instead of the question they were actually asked. SpartHawg948 00:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC) It seems to me that you are getting stuck and repeating yourself when I have made a valid point and I am sure you feel the same about me. Such is the way of man. Let's address one point at a time and not move on until it is addressed. In the post above this, what is one of the points you say I did not address? -- Shoggoth1890 04:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :The contention, made several times, that this issue is largely subjective, depending on ones own interpretation of the rather convoluted and contradictory mythos Lovecraft concocted. SpartHawg948 04:39, January 22, 2011 (UTC) Would you agree with the statement that, "when in doubt, refer to 'The Call of Cthulhu'", since it is 1.) From the creator of the character and 2.) Contains the most information on the character from said source? -- Shoggoth1890 04:49, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :Not really. What we have here is a multi-volume series, with works by the original author and his (more or less) chosen successor. We also find contradictory elements within the works written solely by the original author. As I reply when asked similar questions dealing strictly with Mass Effect issues, it is not up to us to determine which items from different works in the series are more or less canon. We merely have to make the best of what we're given until the relevant authorities choose to make their views known, though I must confess I have no clue who the relevant authorities are in regards to the Cthulhu (spelled with two H's just for you!) mythos. Perhaps the estates of Mr. Lovecraft and/or Derleth, or possibly Arkham House? Please don't think I'm just trying to be contrarian here. As stated above, I take a nearly identical stance with canon issues and inconsistencies within the Mass Effect universe. SpartHawg948 04:58, January 22, 2011 (UTC) Heh, I appreciate the peace offering of the H. I've admittedly had issues with Derleth ever since being duped into buying his "posthumous collaborations" when I was first getting into Lovecraft. He did help bring HPL to the public, so it's a one-sided love-hate relationship between him and I. Would you agree with the more generalized statement(not referring to the Cthulu Mythos this time) that when there is a dispute in the canon of something, source material should be referenced? -- Shoggoth1890 05:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :Yes... to an extent. (Don't want to talk myself into a corner here - referring to general site policies, not to this discussion in particular.) I do think that, for disputes of the nature you describe, source material certainly should be referenced. The only issue I have with this is with referencing canon sources in the disputed article. I don't think that is always necessary, so long as the source is provided, preferably on a talk page. The reason I make this equivocation is because we've had issues before with people citing sources (particularly the three Mass Effect novels) for every tiny little detail, and in a fictional universe, that leads to a whole lot of citations at the bottom of the page. SpartHawg948 05:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC) Do not worry, I'm not playing the "gotcha!" game. I always view slight concessions as a good sign and thus try to avoid discouraging them, and try to make sure I make them as well. Is the primary issue then that I did not cite "The Call of Cthulhu"? I am admittedly new to editing wikis, and have not learned all of the proper etiquette (couldn't find the 3 revert rule Lancer mentioned, is it an unspoken rule or did I look at the wrong page?) -- 05:43, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not worried about you playing "gotcha!" or anything. It's more about making sure I don't get myself into trouble later. I'm big on precedent and all that when making decisions, and it's never fun when someone doesn't like something I did and responds with 'but on your talk page, you said "___"', so I'm just trying to cover all my bases, playing "CYA". I can't really speak for what Lancer's issue was, though mine was more an issue of accuracy, compliance with site policy, and perhaps relevance. :Now, as to the "three-revert rule", I suppose we could clarify that some. There is actually nothing explicitly defining the three-revert rule or its use by the site admins. There is an item in the Community Guidelines which names "edit warring" as grounds for banning, and the admins use the "three revert rule" which is used by the folks at Wikipedia as the basis for determining what is and isn't an edit war. I suppose the Guidelines could use some clarification. I'll get right on it! :) SpartHawg948 05:55, January 22, 2011 (UTC) Oddly enough I feel placated despite our still extant disagreement. I do agree with you that the specifics of the article could be refined, but enough of a connection exists that it seems extreme to deny them entirely, so much so that it came off sounding like you were threatening to take away something as punishment. I apologize if that was incorrectly interpreted. Perhaps a mention that it is incredibly similar to the nature of Cthulhu as described in 'The Call of Cthulhu', as it seems we both agree that particular story does match, and the contention arises from continuity thereafter? -- Shoggoth1890 06:34, January 22, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure. I do, as I've stated several times, feel that there is a decent case to be made for a connection between the Reapers as a whole and Cthulhu, since when talking about the Reapers as a whole we can factor in the Derelict Reaper. And frankly, the only way someone can deny the Cthulhu references in that case is if the person in question is either ignorant or just denying it out of spite. As such, I am perfectly happy keeping the Cthulhu trivia on the Reaper page. However, I just don't think that a valid case has been made as far as Sovereign and Cthulu. I still stand by my comments on the Sovereign talk page. A much better case needs to be made to keep that item. This is not me being contrary, or attempting to punish. I simply, after examining the issue more closely, don't see the merit of the trivia linking Sovereign to Cthulhu. 80% of it is just plain false. SpartHawg948 07:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC) First the image issue: While true that the original editor's claim that they are "the same" is inaccurate, that does not mean there is no connection at all. Would you agree that the cephalopodic feature of Cthulhu is regarded as his most defining and most referenced physical characteristic, as opposed to the man-like and dragon-like elements? -- Shoggoth1890 03:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :Sure. That said, it needs to be pointed out that Cthulhu was said to be reminiscent of an octopus. Sovereign clearly is not. It must also be pointed out that simple comparisons based on visuals or appearance are, per site policy, not grounds for valid trivia. SpartHawg948 05:46, January 23, 2011 (UTC) first i'd like to say thank you for welcoming me to the forums. second, i'd really love to join this discussion if its not unwelcome. as a fan of both series and a person who analyzes things way too much, i feel i have things to add, or perhaps a third side to this debate. i think in terms of the role he plays in the scheme of things (to awaken or call others of his kind, or relatively his kind. the fact that for some reason he needs to influence humans to try to bring this about), there's quite a bit of relation between cthulhu and sovereign in specific, not the entirety of reapers. as far as appearance... although i disagree that sovereign doesn't look somewhat like a mechanical squid or octopus, and cthulhu has also been discribed with a squid like head, not just like an octopus, i still say it doesn't work as well as other points of comparison. maybe if what makes up sovereign's being were mounted on a body as a head i could see more relation, as far as old ones, i believe the term was used as an unspecific term to beings that are old, capitalized because they were of great power and importance. it is used for cthulu, those referred to as great old ones, outer gods, elder gods, and elder things, etc. as far as cthulhu not being an old one, i think in many ways, the statement was a way of saying he was the of the same type, yet something was different about him. perhaps he was different for being younger for all i know, but he cant just plain be a different thing all together. i have always thought that most of what divides the great old ones from the outer gods is a simple matter of their power and limitations. in fact cthulhu is stated to be born from nub/nagoob, one of the twin blasphemies, who are children of yog-sothoth and shub-niggurath. so in a way, this part of the debate boils down to how closely related he is to his grandparents, he is related, and to some extant must be the same creature or species. and about the quote "they could plunge from world to world through the sky" i can see how that could relate most to reapers than most works of science fiction by far. the reason i say that is because if you take for instance stargate, they need the gates and dont technically go through the sky, with most other science fiction there is some craft like object doing the traveling for them, they dont traverse space under there own power and descend upon worlds to reap udder destruction like the reapers and creatures of the cthulhu mythos. going further with the passage, the association of the stars being right holds much more connection in my mind with an idea of cycles and ages like the repeated wiping out of civilizations done by the reapers than it connects to say the calculation of orbits and such that would be required with the gates of stargate. i also see a big correlation in how they assert their control on humans, the indoctrination being in a way a reduced version of both the dream manipulation great old ones use and the insanity caused by cthulhu rising. plus the idea that both have been through many incarnations of civilization is a tie. sorry for intruding in the conversation if my post is viewed as such and sorry for it being so long. lol i came just to leave a message to say thank you for the welcome but i got to your talk page and got intellectually inspired. :)Wilkisama 15:37, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :I never said Sovereign doesn't look like some sort of mechanical cephalopod. On the contrary, it looks strikingly like a mechanical cuttlefish. On the other hand, I've never seen Cthulhu depicted with cuttlefish-like features, only with those of an octopus, and octopi and cuttlefish look quite different, do they not? :And I do feel the need to point out that in Stargate, they do go through the sky. We see it in pretty much every episode and motion picture. The stargates function by opening a stable wormhole between two points, and the person moving between them is transmitted as matter from one to the other, passing rapidly through the intervening area of interstellar (and sometimes intergalactic) space. This is represented in the shows and movies as the onrushing wormhole, with stars visible rushing by outside. As for your other objections to the stargate analogy, it wasn't an exact comparison, it was an analogy. In order to disprove it, you would have to demonstrate how the quote in question better describes the modes of travel used by Reapers and by the races of Mass Effect in general than it does other sci-fi series. SpartHawg948 20:47, January 23, 2011 (UTC) No worries Sama, input can only add to a discussion, never take away. Spart: although appearance alone is not worth mentioning as trivia, when coupled with other points that solidify it's connection to the central plot of a game series, it is. Going on a point-by-point basis right now since we kept getting bogged down in cluttered arguments. Although octopus is used as a descriptor, it is clear from the sketch of Cthulhu that Lovecraft did in one of his correspondences that he did not specifically mean an octopus but a cephalopod in general. Technically, the Reapers are not described as resembling squids either, but rather cuttlefish. I will move on to the next point if you are satisfied with this leg of the conversation. -- Shoggoth1890 19:06, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :I fully understand that, when coupled with other points, appearance becomes a viable support for a piece of trivia. I really don't need it to be explained to me. Funny thing is, when you helped write all the rules, you tend to understand them pretty well. Now, you contend that Lovecraft did not specifically mean that Cthulhu resembled an octopus, but rather a cephalopod in general. Why then did Lovecraft himself liken Cthulhu specifically to an octopus? I find it odd that you go from holding up what Lovecraft said in Call of Cthulhu is the canon of canons (as you argued earlier while discussing the matter that originally spawned this discussion) to arguing that what Lovecraft said in Call of Cthulhu isn't really what he meant. Additionally, I am well aware that Reapers look more like cuttlefish than squid. In fact, it's well known to me, and has been for some time, that Reapers look very much like Reaper Cuttlefish. http://www.tnaqua.org/Newsroom/HighRes/ComCuttlefish9.jpg So like a Reaper Cuttlefish that we've had to remove "trivia" several times that they were created using Reaper Cuttlefish (thanks to the bit in ME2 where EDI hypothesizes that Reapers take on the form of the race used to create them). If you're satisfied with this part of the conversation, I am. SpartHawg948 20:47, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Please, don't use gotcha tactics. I have not mentioned the moments I noticed of yours, and the one you mention is not a contradiction, since Lovecraft was using similarities to an octopus as a way to describe this utterly alien being; not that he literally had an octopus on his head. Later on in the story, he is indeed described using the word squid. I'm sure you'll agree that although he was also described as "man-like", it was only describing his general anthropoid features and could have easily been referred to as any primate-like. Is it sheer coincidence that the Derelict Reaper that we both identify as a Cthulhu reference is in the shape of a cephalopod? That alone should show that the designers draw the association of which I speak. -- Shoggoth1890 21:19, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not using gotcha tactics. I didn't realize that what I could and couldn't say on my own talk page was your purview. (Though perhaps when you answered the query from another user about taking part in a discussion on my talk page, that should have been a hint...) I also didn't realize that pointing out contradictions in your position (as it is a contradiction) was inappropriate. Now you are interpreting what Lovecraft did and didn't mean. Of course he didn't literally have an octopus for a head. Not once have I voiced such a ludicrous statement. He did have an octopus-like head though, and as I've repeatedly pointed out, octopi and cuttlefish look extremely dissimilar. Now, you go on to make assumptions about my own opinion on the Derelict Reaper. My identification of the Derelict Reaper with the Cthulhu mythos has nothing to do with the shape of the vessel, and everything to do with the line about dead gods dreaming. It seems entirely likely that the developers saw a picture of a Reaper Cuttlefish, and designed the Reapers to resemble the Reaper Cuttlefish. Were this the case, it would explain why the Reapers have the same name and nearly identical appearance as the aforementioned cuttlefish, and would do so completely without Cthulhu. Now, about that moving on... SpartHawg948 21:29, January 23, 2011 (UTC) I've not ditctated what you could and could not say, I politely asked. It was not intended to sound feign. I was hoping for mutual respect and was simply pointing out an area that seemed disrespectful to me. Please do the same if you feel I am disrespecting you. I gave brief mention to another poster as not to be rude and completely ignore him. -- Lovecraft used the phrase "octopus-like" to describe Cthulhu, and he also used the phrase "squid-head". These do not conflict with each other because he is conveying that Cthulhu possessed generic cephalopodic traits. -- I never claimed you were making the association between the shape, I was asking you if the shape was a coincidence to the "dead god dreaming". Although the Reaper design appears specifically based on the reaper cuttlefish, the question I am asking is why of all the possible creatures that exist did they choose a cuttlefish? -- Shoggoth1890 22:53, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :Simple. They were mulling over the name "Reaper", someone knew about or heard of the Reaper Cuttlefish, they looked at an image of the cuttlefish, and liked what they saw. It's a strange and foreign looking creature, and the shape does make for a good spacecraft. It's entirely plausible to surmise that at no point in the creation of Sovereign did Cthulhu come up. Now, I can only give you my word that at no point was disrespect intended, I was merely asking what seemed to me to be a reasonable question. On the other hand, addressing a query from another user concerning acceptable content on my user page, and accusing me of using "gotcha tactics" did strike me as disrespectful. I understand that you were attempting to be polite using euphemisms (though in truth, input can and often does detract from conversations, as I've seen all too often around here), but it would be appreciated if you could refrain from doing so when another user asks about the appropriateness of joining an ongoing conversation on my talk page. Had the user left the same message on your talk page, I'd have deferred to you in that respect. Seriously though, I thought we were moving on several posts ago. This thread is becoming quite lengthy, so I'd like to keep it moving, or stop it altogether, as clearly neither of us is making headway with the other as far as appearance goes. SpartHawg948 23:54, January 23, 2011 (UTC) My comment was not in regard to your talk page but rather to discussions in general; about how nothing added to a discussion(correct or incorrect) can ever delete something previously said. I will assure you as well I meant no disrespect. I have just realized the phrase to best sum up my description of the imagery connection is "visual allusion". On to the next point though, as you suggest. -- I originally agreed with you that Sovereign was not described as "virtually indestructible", but then I read his codex entry in ME2 again, and it says just that. -- Shoggoth1890 00:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, yes it does. The very same sentence also says that Sovereign is a warship crewed by krogan and geth. Nothing more, nothing less. A dreadnought. It is common knowledge that the Codex entries for Sovereign, the Reapers as a whole, and certain other topics such as the rachni are woefully incorrect, representing the commonly held in-universe opinions of the Citadel. However, the same entry also notes that the "virtually indestructable" Sovereign was stopped, though it fails to mention the fact that this was as a result of Sovereign's destruction. SpartHawg948 00:55, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Since whether or not a being is indestructible is only certain upon death of the subject, it is unknown that anything reportedly so truly is. This applies to Cthulhu as well. This makes the relevant information the 'claim' that something is virtually indestructible. Virtual indestructibility is unable to even be proven upon the death of an entity, since it never claims something to be truly indestructible. Thought this point was going to be able to be quickly passed to the next one. -- Shoggoth1890 01:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :There is, however, one thing that can prove or disprove virtual indestructibility. Destroying the person or thing in question. Regardless, we seem to have gotten off track here. Having gone back and reviewed the issue, the matter of indestructibility, presumed, virtual, or otherwise, is moot. The issue raised was whether or not Sovereign was "presumably near-invincible". It was not. At no point, not even in the hyperbolic and propagandized ME2 Codex entry on Sovereign, is it claimed or presumed that Sovereign was nearly invincible. As this is the case, and as Sovereign is demonstrably destructible, this point seems pretty open and shut. SpartHawg948 02:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Destruction of something cannot determine if something was 'virtually' indestructible, only the history of attempts to destroy it can. The codex entry clearly states what was rumor and what was not. It states that the crew of krogan and geth were Saren's, not that they piloted Sovereign(sorry if misinterpreting the point of mentioning this). -- Shoggoth1890 02:22, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Sigh... didn't I just point out that the virtually indestructible bit was moot, as it was you who just now introduced it to the argument despite the fact that no such thing had been discussed prior to a couple of hours ago? However, just for S&Gs, let's look at the history of attempts to destroy Sovereign. Depending on how you slice it, we really have either two or possibly three known attempts to destroy Sovereign. The Citadel fleet tries, and fails. It should be noted that this was due, at least in part, to the presence of a strong geth fleet which obstructed the Citadel fleet, and as such does not accurately reflect the ability of the Citadel fleet to take down the Reaper. Next, we have the Alliance attempt, with an Alliance fleet (which was smaller and less formidable than the Citadel fleet) working in conjunction with Shepard and company to take it down. This effort succeeded. Now, depending on whether you consider the later as one or two attempts, we have either a 50% or 33% success rate. Hardly "virtually" indestructible. :As for the Codex, it does specify that Saren has an "indestructible flagship and a crew of fanatic geth and krogan". Given that the two are linked thus, and the krogan and geth are described as a "crew" and not, say, an army, the implication would be that the geth and krogan were the one presumably operating the ship, would it not? This is further reinforced by repeated claims made in ME2, most notably by the Council, that Sovereign was a geth vessel. The point of mentioning this was that the ME2 Codex entry on Saren, generally regarded as canon but inaccurate (representing, as it does, the misguided beliefs of some members of the galactic community) is hardly a reputable source upon which to base an argument. Now... was there anything else? This thread is getting quite long, yet we've only touched (inconclusively, I might add) upon two points out of five. SpartHawg948 02:39, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :*It also just occurred to me the irony (and this is meant ironically, with no malice aforethought) of the earlier claim that I'' was secretly Cthulhu, sent to drive ''you mad. Methinks the roles have been reversed. Tedious does not begin to describe this thread of late... :{ SpartHawg948 02:41, January 24, 2011 (UTC) No offense taken at that. I meant mine jokingly as well, and figured you were as frustrated as I. We're both passionate about the subject and it shows. In a nautical sense, crew is a term that refers to any personnel of a ship, including guards or (jet)pilots that never touch a ship's controls. I'll give you were getting nit picky on that there. If you want to move on to the next point, we shall. -- Shoggoth1890 03:07, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Being a member of the armed forces, I am of course well aware of all the implications of the word crew. It can be used to define personnel stationed on a ship who don't operate a ships controls, but of course this is not the common definition. As you say, it's an extremely nit-picky definition. I don't want to move on to the next point, fearing it will be both as lengthy and as unproductive as the previous two, but if you wish to move on, then let's move on. SpartHawg948 03:28, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Crap, I was in too much of a rush and forgot to even address the issues in your other post. Sovereign claims the cycle of destruction has continued since time immemorial, with only a single dead Reaper ever discovered. Since it's safe to assume that most the civilizations fought back rather than accept their destruction, it's a pretty strong track record. My forehead is getting bruised, so I'll shorten the remainder *Sovereign explicitly states that his nature is beyond our understanding *Codex states that eventually the indoctrinated loose their mental faculties *A question: if you don't accept what the codex says, how are you determining anything about the universe? Conversations with people in-game are even more subject to bias and rumor than the codex. Firsthand experiences are not enough to cover even half the content here, and can be deceiving. -- Shoggoth1890 03:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah. The problem there is that you're working off assumptions, and I'm working off observations. One of my foremost rules is "There is no such thing as a safe assumption". If we look at known fact, we see that of the four Reapers directly encountered by Shepard and crew (Sovereign, Harbinger, the Derelict Reaper, and the Human-Reaper), one is already dead (for all intents and purposes, though some systems are apparently still functional), and two are destroyed in short order. So, operating off facts, not assumptions, Reapers would appear not insanely difficult to kill. Granted, they do seem to do ok with the cycles of extinction, but much of that can be attributed to the massive first strike they inflict, and to their deactivation of the mass relays, isolating their targets and allowing them to wither on the vine, akin to Alliance military doctrine. When deprived of these advantages, they become much less formidable. Now, to the other points: :*Sovereign explicitly states that the goals of the Reapers, and the reasons for their cycle of extinction, are beyond human understanding. It (and please, I started spelling Cthulhu with an H, can you return the favor by not calling Sovereign, a machine-organic hybrid of indeterminate gender, or possibly no gender at all, a "he"?) never states that it is beyond human understanding. :*The Codex does not state that the victims of indoctrination go mad though, does it? In fact, Vigil specifies what happens to them when it mentions that the Reapers indoctrinated pawns, left behind when the Reapers left, essentially ceased to function. Bereft of the Reapers commands and suggestions, they simply... stopped, and eventually died from thirst, starvation, exposure, etc. Again, we have seen no evidence of people being driven mad, and it should also be pointed out that, contrary to what the "Sovereign-Cthulhu" trivia blurb asserted, even if they had, it would not be from the mere presence of the Reapers, but rather from the process of Indoctrination, which is a purposeful act undertaken by the Reapers. This is a far cry from the mere presence of the Reapers causing madness, as was suggested. :*As for the Codex, when did I ever say that I (or this wiki) do not accept what the Codex says? Ever? Even once? I can't recall any such statement. In all but a very few, and very obvious, cases, the Codex is deemed the best source for information. However, due to the in-universe bias inherent in the Codex, a few entries (particularly the entries about Sovereign and the Reapers) are considered exceptions to this rule, as we see for ourselves that these entries are not true, but rather are a reflection of the ignorance of their authors on the subject matter. Of course dialogue from characters is generally unreliable, which is why we treat it as such. However, the Codex itself is pretty darn unreliable too. Just look at the entries on Sovereign and the Reapers if you don't believe me. SpartHawg948 04:12, January 24, 2011 (UTC) ::*Addendum - In the interests of full disclosure and accuracy, I did go back and redo talking to Sovereign. It turns out that it does state that it is beyond Commander Shepard's comprehension. That said, I must point out that, as we now know, this claim is false, and I'm far from convinced that a megalomaniacal claim that we know to be false is akin to truly being beyond comprehension, as Cthulhu apparently is. That said, I will admit that only 60% of the trivia I removed was bogus. There was merit to a whopping 40%. Still doesn't seem like enough to me. SpartHawg948 04:48, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Ok, I give up. I simply cannot say anything you consider logical, and it is too frustrating. Not responding to any topics about this here or externally. Parts of the debate were interesting, so thank you. I bid my adieu now -- Shoggoth1890 05:40, January 24, 2011 (UTC) :Roger that. I feel much the same way, if it makes you feel any better. And know that I bear you absolutely no ill will or any of that other nasty stuff. There may have been a few misunderstandings along the way, but we worked through them (most of the credit for that, by the way, belongs to you, the person willing to make the first conciliatory gesture, which you certainly have my respect for), and as far as I'm concerned, any unpleasantness between us is water under the bridge. SpartHawg948 05:43, January 24, 2011 (UTC) Awaiting your green-light A couple articles I want to create: *'Urdnot Camp' - a visitable location in ME2 that somehow never got an article. This would be formatted like Nos Astra and other location articles. *'Virtual Alien' - from the Cerberus Daily News storyline. I've had an article ready-made for months now in my sandbox. I was waiting to get the aliens' actual name for themselves, but since the CDN ends tomorrow such a revelation is unlikely. If we ever do learn their name, we can move the article and make the necessary revisions to the text. This alright with you? -- Commdor (Talk) 21:52, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Oh, and a category for homeworlds. I figure that might be useful. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:55, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Bless you, Commdor! You have no idea how nice it is to get a message on my talk page that doesn't have to do with this Cthulhu nonsense. Honestly, you'd think that I had desecrated H. P. Lovecraft's corpse or something based on the arguments. This despite the fact that I actually agree with them on some points. But I'm seriously digressing now... :Both those ideas sound great! You're right on both counts... I can't really see how the Udrnot camp was missed, and we're likely not getting the virtual aliens' names any time soon. Hopefully towards the end of the year though, when a certain game is released... Anywho, consider both your articles green-lighted! :) SpartHawg948 21:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :Oh, and your accursed edit-conflicting homeworld category sounds like a decent idea too. I'm not quite as keen on that one, but I also don't see any real reason not to. SpartHawg948 21:57, January 23, 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks, I'll get started on them. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC) "Mass Effect Wiki -- at the top!" That is the caption for Sannse's newest blog about how Wikia is finally fully up to date with the new MediaWiki software. There are a few things that are interesting, mainly with one about Wikia images now will be showing up in Google and other search engines more, meaning more of the pics here will get seen, but what I thought I'd share was the pic. A Google search of everyone's favorite krogan. Figured I'd share what I found, I know technical details may not be interesting, but I'm sure the pic, and caption, would be interesting to share. Lancer1289 01:58, January 26, 2011 (UTC) One blog that just doesn't get a break Hey Spart, first how's the new job going? Unless I'm misinterpreting your comment, then you are high up in the chain, head of security? Anyway something keeps bugging me, it's User blog:Pepoluan/Russian version of "Explanations and Excuses" is available!. There have been more instances of vandalism on it today, five as of right now, and all of the same type. Frankly, I feel it has gone on long enough. I'm thinking of upping the bans for the vandalism to a year, maybe perma, since this hasn't stopped. I've even though about deleting the blog to stop it or asking Pepoluan to take it down. I know that is going way beyond what we can do, but I'm starting to get really annoyed with this. So I'm looking for your opinion on this as well. Lancer1289 20:48, January 29, 2011 (UTC) :You could always ask Pepoluan to turn off commenting for that particular blog. On the editing screen, there's a check box at the top for the blog's creator to enable/disable comments. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:55, January 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, it's head of security for a branch. As for my opinion, I think Commdor's suggestion says about right. See if Pepoluan wants to turn off commenting. Upping the ban won't stop this from happening, unfortunately. SpartHawg948 05:11, January 30, 2011 (UTC) :::I've already dropped him a message after it happened for the fifth time today, so I'm hoping that he will reply quickly. Lancer1289 05:25, January 30, 2011 (UTC) I'm guessing you couldn't see the last comment to delete it? That does seem to be an issue with some blogs with comments not showing up, especially ones that need to be deleted like that. Maybe you can answer a puzzle that I've had on my mind lately. Why do people constantly vandalize the same forum, blog, or page time after time after time? To me it just doesn’t make any sense to me so maybe you can grant some light on it. My theory is that it is just one person and a group of friends that vandalize the same pages to try and annoy the people that maintain the sites. Lancer1289 06:23, January 30, 2011 (UTC) :I have no idea whether or not I could see the last comment to delete it. I was watching the NHL All-Star Draft when it was posted. By the time I refreshed the page to see what had been going on, it had already been posted and deleted. As for why, I have no special insight into the matter. It's more than likely one person or a group of people, but of course that is the "who", not the "why". SpartHawg948 06:32, January 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Well I guess that some people can only have fun at other people's expense, having run across quite a few of them. I guess we'll just have to roll with the punches on this one, again. Lancer1289 06:42, January 30, 2011 (UTC) Speculation Policy Since this came up in a recent discussion, I believe there needs to be a change to the current speculation policy given actions we have done in the past. We do revert speculation in articles whenever it shows up so there is a current problem with the policy and our actions. The main issue brought up in the discussion was the policy says, It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph. We have had instances of that in the past where it has gotten reverted and we do revert it on a regular basis. I think we do need to change that policy to say that we don't allow speculation except when it does have a reliable source. Or not at all, which would be more consistent with past actions on the site. Your thoughts on this? Lancer1289 18:56, January 31, 2011 (UTC) :First, I've been quiet on the issue thus far, but I don't think it's speculation to say that we see a female turian in Evolution. It seems blatantly obvious to me. As for the speculation policy, I think that the item you quote is fine to stay. After all, we use that bit all the time in article trivia sections when speculating as to possible references (as every mention of a possible reference is speculation, with only devconfirmed references being fact). I see no reason whatsoever to remove it. SpartHawg948 04:23, February 1, 2011 (UTC) AudioBox Template I've finished the AudioBox Template and yay/nay voting is open. I'd like your input, please. --Swooshy 23:05, February 2, 2011 (UTC) :I promise that you'll have my input, but it won't be today. I'm at the point where I'm so tired that remaining still while I type this is hard, and amidst this weaving to and fro, I'm pretty sure that at least two or three of the things I'm seeing in front of me right now aren't really there. So I'm going to collapse onto my bed, then tomorrow, after I take care of some worky-work type training nonsense that will let me do bad things to bad people, I'll pop on over and take a looksee, and offer my opinion. I'm looking forward to seeing it, just not right now. SpartHawg948 08:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one that gets schizophrenic when missing sleep. Anyway, take your time, there's no rush. --Swooshy 12:56, February 3, 2011 (UTC) Protection Hey Spart, I have a quick question for you. Given the recent spree of vandalism on the Forum:Index, Commdor approached me on semi-protecting it. Given the page is only edited very, very infrequently; I really don't see a problem putting protection on it. I know that we protect articles very infrequently, but given the massive amount of vandalism recently, six times in the last three days, and the fact that the page is only really supposed to be edited very infrequently, I really don't see a problem with protecting it. Lancer1289 01:13, February 4, 2011 (UTC) :I don't really see any reason to protect it. Five times in three days? Six times in four days? I've seen much, much worse without ever resorting to protecting pages. Protecting the page is an outright admission that the vandal has won, forcing us to resort to a last-ditch option that is extremely rarely used. I honestly just don't see the need to protect because of one bored individual, which is all this appears to be. SpartHawg948 01:57, February 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Well when you put it that way, it does shine a different light on it. Lancer1289 01:58, February 4, 2011 (UTC) Hi. Pay no attention to my name, it was a mistake. Just wondering, isn't it only fair that we mention Halo's High Charity on Omega? They ARE similar.